G
Greg_L
Banned
No, you were absolutely 100% right, you just took too many fucking words to say it because you like to hear yourself talk.
No, you were absolutely 100% right, you just took too many fucking words to say it because you like to hear yourself talk.
haunt
Maker of Noise
Thanks. Internet high fives from strangers make it all worthwhile.
It's not that I like hearing myself talk, it's that I dislike looking back at things I've said and hating them, or regret not saying this/that and the other thing. Seeing old things I've said where I want to smack myself for whatever reason. The voice in my head is a wordy jackass who strives for brevity, but rarely is able to think in fewer than 10 word sentences. Once I get started on a topic that interests me my mind's turbo spools. When trying to be brief I wind up coming off as a bigger creep or giving the wrong impression altogether. Needless to say I don't tweet. Maybe some day...
Also, look who's (liking to hear himself) talking, post count!
G
Greg_L
Banned
Thanks. Internet high fives from strangers make it all worthwhile.
It's not that I like hearing myself talk, it's that I dislike looking back at things I've said and hating them, or regret not saying this/that and the other thing. Seeing old things I've said where I want to smack myself for whatever reason. The voice in my head is a wordy jackass who strives for brevity, but rarely is able to think in fewer than 10 word sentences. Once I get started on a topic that interests me my mind's turbo spools. When trying to be brief I wind up coming off as a bigger creep or giving the wrong impression altogether. Needless to say I don't tweet. Maybe some day...
Also, look who's (liking to hear himself) talking, post count!
Totally! According to my stats I'm averaging a whopping 8.8 one-line posts per day! Who has the time for 8 posts a day?
Bobbsy
Boring Old Git
I don't think I'll ever understand why some people have such strong feelings on the subject of analog vs. digital. It just doesn't seem like something to get excited about.
We've all heard plenty of great and shitty music produced using both mediums, so I don't see why it makes a bit of difference either way.
Seriously, the original question was "Would you do analogue recording?".
Truthful answer? Yeah, maybe I would if I could afford state of the art multrack recorders and mixers and outboard racks...and the space for it all. However, with the gear I COULD afford, my recordings would be severely limited to what I can do in digital with a laptop and some software.
Does one sound better than the other? Given great analogue gear well maintained, probably not. Given the sort of analogue I can afford and the amount of time I'm willing to spend on maintenance, digital is probably better. No, make that more accurate and less noisy. "Better" is subjective. If you like the effect that some of the minor imperfections of analogue--even cheap analogue--give your music, that's great. There are some wonderful recordings done this way.
So...everyone has preferences and that's great. And it's fine to say "I prefer analogue" or "I prefer digital". However, as soon as anyone starts making blanket statements the one system or the other is better for everyone...they're wrong.
John Willett
Circle Sound Services
I actually agree with a lot of what you are saying.
But digital recording *is* far more accurate than analogue tape recording - yes, I agree that digital has problems of it's own, but these are far less of a distortion on the recording than those of analogue tape.
Please note - I am NOT pro digital & anti analogue - both have their place and you use what gives you the results that *you* desire.
The migration (as you say) to digital was driven, in the first instance, by better QUALITY, and not by ease of use. Denon developed their own digital recorders from scratch because they wanted a better quality recording than analogue could offer. I went digital in 1983 because it gave me a far better recording quality than analogue could at that time - even though it was more difficult and expensive to use than the equivalent analogue recording at the time.
I don't use analogue because it distorts far too much for what I am doing (ie: recording classical music in a live acoustic).
What is MOST important is the MUSIC.
Unfortunately modern digital recording can encourage laziness - recording loads of tracks with loads of plug-ins and sorting it out in the mix - yuk.
Plug-ins can add their own distortion and this method of working discourages *performance* and people tend to concentrate on fine detail and playing notes rather than performing.
This can add a nastiness that going through an analogue chain can modify and make it sound "nicer".
But this is not a fault with digital recoding, it's how it's used.
As I have said, there is a place for both and you use what gives you the best results for you.
When I record, the most important thin is to get a great performance from the musician - I want him/her "sweating blood" and putting their whole being into producing a great performance - I then want to capture that performance in the best way I can.
A CD (or whatever) based on that principle will be listened to again and again and again, instead of being listened to once and then put on the shelf never to be listened to again.
All the CDs I listen to again and again have all be great *performances*.
The performance of music is the most important thing and you should use analogue or digital to get you the very best recording of that performance.
ausrock
Well-known member
Well the discussion has veered away from the OP's question but it's remained interesting.
John, in view of your saying digital is more accurate, I have to ask what your thoughts are re the generally accepted fact that while our hearing is limited to around 20khz, we can still sense frequencies considerably higher than that and like our hearing, digital tops out around 20khz while appropriate analogue gear can both record and reproduce these higher frequencies.
John, in view of your saying digital is more accurate, I have to ask what your thoughts are re the generally accepted fact that while our hearing is limited to around 20khz, we can still sense frequencies considerably higher than that and like our hearing, digital tops out around 20khz while appropriate analogue gear can both record and reproduce these higher frequencies.
Bobbsy
Boring Old Git
If you believe that, then just change your digital sampling rate to 88 or 96 or 192 kHz and the available frequencies can go up.
However, before I do that, I'd have to find a microphone and speakers and headphones that can accurately reproduce about the 20kHz figure...
However, before I do that, I'd have to find a microphone and speakers and headphones that can accurately reproduce about the 20kHz figure...
E
ecc83
Well-known member
And nobody EVER complains about FM and the brickwall at 15kHz!
And where are all the people "sensing" the remnant 19kHz pilot tone from FM stereo?
Shoot! MOST people never noticed 15625Hz line whistle from tellies unless an inductor rattled. Mind you it got a lot worse when cabinets went from 3/8ply to 3mm plastic.
The thing that bugs me is that all these Russ Andrews disciples that hear all these airy fairy things SHOULD be driven mad by the ultrasonic shit that invades our world!
Dave.
DM60
Well-known member
Don't aluminum hats help that?
Farview
Well-known member
My thoughts on the ultra high frequency thing, not that you asked me, are this: There is precious little energy in the 15k-20k range in the first place. How much energy could there be an octave above that? Once you add Bobbsy's point about not being able to capture or play back those frequencies, it seems like a pointless thing to worry about.
ausrock
Well-known member
Gettin ready to drive down to Sydney to see Ian Anderson at the Opera House tonight.......may come back to this thread tomorrow.
M
mdainsd
Member
That sounds like a blast! Summer at the bay in Sydney. Nice.
Supercreep
Lizard People
RE: OP: Maybe, for a specific purpose.
Bobbsy
Boring Old Git
Three days on and still no review of Ian Anderson in Sydney.
Must have been a very good--or very bad--concert. My money is on very good!
Must have been a very good--or very bad--concert. My money is on very good!
ausrock
Well-known member
With respect to the OP I'll keep it kinda brief............as with past Tull concerts it was at times quirky, IA's voice has trouble in the higher registers these days and the vocal "load" was admirably shared with a young guy (Ryan ? ). The band were excellent.......apart from two songs off IA's new album, everything was earlier Tull including Thick As A Brick and was played to virtual perfection.
A packed SOH gave a prolonged standing ovation.............personally, I think IA should rethink how he approaches his vocals, (at times they were not good), and stick to playing his flute.
Supercreep
Lizard People
I think that relative to art, results are always more important than process.
E
ecc83
Well-known member
Except when said process interferes with art which in the case of tape and vinyl and the Moonlight Sonata it most assuredly does.
Dave.
M
mdainsd
Member
i just finished a day of analog recording. I had a blast! After some drum tracking I got to play with a new (analog) compressor on the drum buss. Delicious!
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
M
mdainsd
Member
LOL, good one! No it sure wasnt the MoonLight Sonata. Just some black metal for a otherwise quiet Sunday. The 20dB dynamic range of tape isnt a problem....with this genre. The hideous distortions and the unfathomably horrible wow and flutter seemed to have added to the artistry 